This review explores recent trends in the development and evaluation of assistive robotic arms, both prosthetic and externally mounted. Evaluations have been organized according to the CATOR taxonomy of assistive device outcomes, which takes into consideration device effectiveness, social significance, and impact on subjective well-being. Questions that have informed the review include: (1) Are robotic arms being comprehensively evaluated along axes of the CATOR taxonomy? (2) Are definitions of effectiveness in accordance with the priorities of users? (3) What gaps in robotic arm evaluation exist, and how might these best be addressed? (4) What further advances can be expected in the next 15 years? Results highlight the need for increased standardization of evaluation methods, increased emphasis on the social significance (i.e., social cost) of devices, and increased emphasis on device impact on quality of life. Several open areas for future research, in terms of both device evaluation and device development, are also discussed.

Stuart Glaser's (Stu's) controller: There's no paper. For citations, please cite the wiki page for the teleop_controllers package and the stack version (pr2_cockpit 0.1). The best reference for how it works is the code (attached). The controller is a riff off of "Simplified Acceleration Based Control Variation 1" from this paper (Comparative experiments on task space control with redundancy resolution by Nakanishi, Cory, Mistry, Peters and Schaal, IROS 2005)

This review explores recent trends in the development and evaluation of assistive robotic arms, both prosthetic and externally mounted. Evaluations have been organized according to the CATOR taxonomy of assistive device outcomes, which takes into consideration device effectiveness, social significance, and impact on subjective well-being. Questions that have informed the review include: (1) Are robotic arms being comprehensively evaluated along axes of the CATOR taxonomy? (2) Are definitions of effectiveness in accordance with the priorities of users? (3) What gaps in robotic arm evaluation exist, and how might these best be addressed? (4) What further advances can be expected in the next 15 years? Results highlight the need for increased standardization of evaluation methods, increased emphasis on the social significance (i.e., social cost) of devices, and increased emphasis on device impact on quality of life. Several open areas for future research, in terms of both device evaluation and device development, are also discussed.